Is this a scam at Phuket arrivals?

[rooster59]

U.S. judge says may rule next week on reuniting migrant children

By Tom Hals

 

People protest the Trump administration's immigration policy that results in the separation of children from their parents at the southern border of the U.S. outside of the White House in Washington, U.S., June 21, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

(Reuters) - A federal judge said on Friday he could rule as soon as the middle of next week on a request to order the U.S. government to reunite thousands of immigrant children who were separated from their parents after illegally crossing the Mexico-U.S. border.

 

While U.S. President Donald Trump bowed to political pressure on Wednesday and issued an executive order ending the separations, the administration has been silent on plans to reunite parents split from their children.

 

More than 2,300 migrant children have been separated since the Trump administration began a "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal border crossings in early May.

 

At a court hearing on Friday, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union pressed U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego to issue an injunction as soon as Friday evening to force the government to begin reuniting families.

 

"Parents can't find their children, they are not even speaking to their children. It's a humanitarian crisis," said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the ACLU, at Friday's hearing.

 

He asked the judge to order the government to reunite all children in 30 days, and in five days for children under the age of five.

Gelernt also asked for an order barring separations.

 

Some legal experts have said exceptions in the Wednesday executive order could allow some separations to continue.

 

The judge peppered a government lawyer with questions about procedures for handling children separated from their parents and tracking by government agencies, and in general the government lawyer focused on arguments about legal procedure.

 

The government has said in court papers that separation of children is a consequence of the lawful detention of the parent.

 

The ACLU filed the case in February alleging the government violated the right to due process of two unidentified women, from Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo, when their children were removed from them.

 

Sabraw declined to rule at the hearing without further briefing and suggested the ACLU provide details for procedures for reuniting parents and children.

 

Sabraw told the ACLU to file its papers by Monday at 9 a.m. PDT (noon EDT) and directed the government to respond by 4 p.m. PDT on Wednesday.

 

"I will endeavor to issue a ruling shortly after receiving the briefing," he said.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-23

[Expatthailover]

If the ruling involves compassion trump wont have a bar of it 

[Tchooptip]

There is still something that I do not understand if people are put in jail, their children do not accompany them in prison anyway!

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The judge peppered a government lawyer with questions about procedures for handling children separated from their parents and tracking by government agencies, and in general the government lawyer focused on arguments about legal procedure.

In other words the Trump administration have no practical response except off-topic arguments.

Thus far it appears that only the courts have upheld the check & balance to Trump's abuse of power. The Republican congressional majority has proved useless and condescending.

[Scott]

12 minutes ago, Tchooptip said:

There is still something that I do not understand if people are put in jail, their children do not accompany them in prison anyway!

Part of the problem is that generally, people crossing the border are not held in detention and if they are it is for a reasonably brief period of time.   Only those accused of crossing illegally more than once are accused of a felony.

 

Since most are technically not incarcerated in a jail/prison, there is no reason to separate the children.   Facilities can be designed to hold families.  

 

Children are not usually held responsible for the actions of the parents, so detaining them in locked facilities without a court hearing is questionable. 

 

 

[Tchooptip]

24 minutes ago, Scott said:

Part of the problem is that generally, people crossing the border are not held in detention and if they are it is for a reasonably brief period of time.   Only those accused of crossing illegally more than once are accused of a felony.

 

Since most are technically not incarcerated in a jail/prison, there is no reason to separate the children.   Facilities can be designed to hold families.  

 

Children are not usually held responsible for the actions of the parents, so detaining them in locked facilities without a court hearing is questionable. 

 

 

To make it clear I was not trying to defend the administration for this, just and without double language, I thought that these people were put in jail. So thought the children's separation was logically unavoidable,  and you just enlighten me on the situation.

[Tug]

When someone requests shelter it shouldn’t be considered a crime it’s a ploy by trump to demonise all Brown immigrants he gets off screwing helpless people we need bridges not bars and make no mistake no one is espousing open borders,not the dems or Republicans it’s trump trying to label confuse and devide after the midterms the republicans won’t be so fearful of trump 

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

To make it clear I was not trying to defend the administration for this, just and without double language, I thought that these people were put in jail. So thought the children's separation was logically unavoidable,  and you just enlighten me on the situation.

See Scott's Post #5.

Remember 'put in jail' without due process of law, ie., guilty of criminality by a judge, that every person within the US borders is guaranteed regardless of nationality, creed or race. But instead no probation, no bail nor temporary conditional release.

Trump made it a policy choice that children be separated from their parents, guardians, US relatives, etc. He is using Hispanic and Latino children and babies as a strategic weapon of discrimination and as hostages for his $25 billion border wall.

[mtls2005]

12 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

There is still something that I do not understand if people are put in jail, their children do not accompany them in prison anyway!

 

Yes, this is not that hard to understand. Just look at Paul Manafort, his children have not been remanded.

 

And people are generally innocent until found guilty, and are rarely jailed for misdemeanors (unless they're black, brown or red).

 

For example, if a police officer stops me for dong 57 in a 55, he might issue a warning or a ticket, and probably not arrest me and my children. Note that I have white privilege.

 

And we generally do not "jail" people seeking asylum.

 

Lastly, we also tend to care for those less fortunate than ourselves, especially children.

 

 

[Srikcir]

36 minutes ago, Watchful said:

Problem, of course, is 97% FAILED to appear.

Let's try some 'fact-checking':

“In 2016, 39 percent of aliens who were free pending trial failed to show up for their hearings,” Mark H. Metcalf, a former immigration judge in Miami, and Hans von Spakovsky wrote in 2017. “In 2015, 43 percent did the same. Over the past 21 years, 37 percent of all aliens the U.S. permitted to remain free before trial — some 952,000 people — were ordered removed for dodging court.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/04/04/president-trumps-claim-that-democrats-created-catch-and-release-policies/?utm_term=.9667466ac131

When one considers it may takes years before a trial, much less notification for a trial date, absenteeism of such immigrants is hardly surprising. And likely in violation of the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Clause

But attention of POTUS Trump to the US Constitution (for which he swore to serve & protect) has not been his highest priority.

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts with misinformation have been removed along with replies.   Continue at your own peril.

 

As an aside, Protective Services for Children is not jail.  

 

 

[bushdoctor]

11 hours ago, Tug said:

When someone requests shelter it shouldn’t be considered a crime it’s a ploy by trump to demonise all Brown immigrants he gets off screwing helpless people we need bridges not bars and make no mistake no one is espousing open borders,not the dems or Republicans it’s trump trying to label confuse and devide after the midterms the republicans won’t be so fearful of trump 

Most illegal immigrants in the US today are not requesting asylum or asking for shelter. They came here to work. 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, Watchful said:

Of course, you are correct. These people seek better economic conditions.  Problem for them is once caught, this is NOT a reason to avoid deportation. So, they claim asylum and our laws are such a mess, that we end up where we are.

 

Try dragging a kid across Thailand's borders and see what happens.

Whataboutary- nothing to do with Thailand.

 

Next time you’re back in the states, try paying for stuff with Thai Bhat.

 

Doh!

[Basil B]

18 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

There is still something that I do not understand if people are put in jail, their children do not accompany them in prison anyway!

Detention is not jail, these people have not been convicted of anything yet...

[Scott]

8 hours ago, Basil B said:

Detention is not jail, these people have not been convicted of anything yet...

Detention is jail.   They are detained in a closed facility without outside access pending a hearing.   

[bushdoctor]

14 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Yes, this is not that hard to understand. Just look at Paul Manafort, his children have not been remanded.

 

And people are generally innocent until found guilty, and are rarely jailed for misdemeanors (unless they're black, brown or red).

 

For example, if a police officer stops me for dong 57 in a 55, he might issue a warning or a ticket, and probably not arrest me and my children. Note that I have white privilege.

 

And we generally do not "jail" people seeking asylum.

 

Lastly, we also tend to care for those less fortunate than ourselves, especially children.

 

 

Makes no sense. And why would his children be remanded when they can just go home? Illegal immigrants can’t just go home. 

Any statistics on your claim of disproportionate jailing of black brown or red people for misdemeanors? Not sure what a red person is, but I’ll roll with it. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by bushdoctor

[bushdoctor]

On 6/23/2018 at 7:16 AM, Srikcir said:

In other words the Trump administration have no practical response except off-topic arguments.

Thus far it appears that only the courts have upheld the check & balance to Trump's abuse of power. The Republican congressional majority has proved useless and condescending.

Show me where Trump has been found guilty of abuse of power. If that’s an opinion please state us as such. 

[bushdoctor]

On 6/23/2018 at 7:34 AM, Scott said:

Part of the problem is that generally, people crossing the border are not held in detention and if they are it is for a reasonably brief period of time.   Only those accused of crossing illegally more than once are accused of a felony.

 

Since most are technically not incarcerated in a jail/prison, there is no reason to separate the children.   Facilities can be designed to hold families.  

 

Children are not usually held responsible for the actions of the parents, so detaining them in locked facilities without a court hearing is questionable. 

 

 

If the offenders are not held in detention they are relaeased into the community correct? 

[bushdoctor]

14 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Let's try some 'fact-checking':

“In 2016, 39 percent of aliens who were free pending trial failed to show up for their hearings,” Mark H. Metcalf, a former immigration judge in Miami, and Hans von Spakovsky wrote in 2017. “In 2015, 43 percent did the same. Over the past 21 years, 37 percent of all aliens the U.S. permitted to remain free before trial — some 952,000 people — were ordered removed for dodging court.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/04/04/president-trumps-claim-that-democrats-created-catch-and-release-policies/?utm_term=.9667466ac131

When one considers it may takes years before a trial, much less notification for a trial date, absenteeism of such immigrants is hardly surprising. And likely in violation of the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Trial_Clause

But attention of POTUS Trump to the US Constitution (for which he swore to serve & protect) has not been his highest priority.

According to your own facts, most people did not show up for their hearing. 

[Credo]

8 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

According to your own facts, most people did not show up for their hearing. 

How is 37 to 39 % 'most'?

[Scott]

10 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

If the offenders are not held in detention they are relaeased into the community correct? 

That is sort of correct.   They are released, although they may be assigned to a charity to assist in their care or they may go to stay with friends or relatives if present in the US.  

 

More recently, some are being released with ankle monitors.  

 

It's probably best not to label them as offenders until they have been determined to be an offender by the courts.

 

[bushdoctor]

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

That is sort of correct.   They are released, although they may be assigned to a charity to assist in their care or they may go to stay with friends or relatives if present in the US.  

 

More recently, some are being released with ankle monitors.  

 

It's probably best not to label them as offenders until they have been determined to be an offender by the courts.

 

I personally think it’s safe to say that when you cross illegally your an offender, at least of that charge, otherwise they would not be apprehended unless somebody really screwed up. 

[bushdoctor]

22 minutes ago, Credo said:

How is 37 to 39 % 'most'?

 

Your absolutely right, I misread your post. I’ll own it. My apologies.

Still, I think 37-39% disappearing into the community doesn’t qualify as a good plan for securing the border. The good ones probably will show up, the bad ones might not. 

[Scott]

1 hour ago, bushdoctor said:

I personally think it’s safe to say that when you cross illegally your an offender, at least of that charge, otherwise they would not be apprehended unless somebody really screwed up. 

And that is where it gets interesting because I personally know someone who was apprehended in a sting operation in Arizona and taken to detention.   He was a US citizen.   Oh, and some of those detained were in the US legally and were also detained.  

 

But this is getting a little pedantic.   

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.